Speaking for the ‘people disciplines’: Global change science and its human dimensions

Abstract

A number of global change scientists have been enjoining their peers to alter their modus operandi. Calls have been issued for more ‘decision relevant’ forms of inquiry more squarely focused on ‘human dimensions’ as societies enter a ‘no analogue’ planetary situation. This paper analyses the way certain geoscientists who study global change imagine the ‘people disciplines’ to be of relevance to their own endeavours. It reveals a rather narrow understanding of the social sciences to be in play, alongside a largely nominal inclusion of the humanities. The paper suggests reasons for this combination of partiality and omission, and suggests why a much wider and more plural understanding of human dimensions is important. This understanding, it is shown, should rebound on the human dimensions of global change science itself. Some suggestions for new encounters between geoscientists, environmental social scientists and humanists are offered. Around 30 years after the first global change research programmes were created, it is unfortunate that the wider social sciences and humanities are not more visible to, and engaged with, global change scientists. Their relative marginality is a long-run problem. Yet visibility and engagement are vital to avoid ‘science imperialism’ by default in our knowledge of people–planet interactions in the Anthropocene. One hopes that in less than a decade hence, visibility and engagement increase significantly.

Keywords

environmental humanities environmental social science epistemology global change science human dimensions representation transdisciplinarity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agarwala

et al . (2014) Natural capital accounting and climate change. Nature Climate Change 4: 520–522.

Anderson

(2015) Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience 8(12): 898–900.

Bai

et al . (2015) Plausible and desirable futures for the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 39: 351–362.

Ballantyne

(2016) Climate change communication: What can we learn from communication theory? WIRES Climate Change 39:351–362.

Barbier

(2014) Account for depreciation of natural capital. Nature 515: 32–33.

Barnes

et al . (2013) ‘Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change’. Nature Climate Change 3, 541–544.

Barnosky

et al . (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.

Barnosky

et al . (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486: 52–58.

Barnosky

et al . (2014a) Translating science for decision-makers to help navigate the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 1(2):160–170.

10.

Barnosky

et al . (2014b) Introducing the Scientific Consensus Statement on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century. Anthropocene Review 1: 78–109.

11.

Barnosky

et al . (2016) Avoiding collapse: Grand challenges for science and society to solve by 2050. Elementa 4: 1–6.

12.

Barry

Born

(eds) (2012) Interdisciplinarity. London: Routledge.

13.

Belmont Forum (2011) The Belmont Challenge White Paper. Available at: http://igfagcr.org/sites/default/files/documents/belmont-challenge-white-paper.pdf.

14.

Bird Rose

et al . (2012) Thinking through the environment, unsettling the humanities. Environmental Humanities 1: 1–5.

15.

Black

(2015) No more summaries for wonks. Nature Climate Change 5: 282–283.

16.

Blue

(2015) Framing climate change for public deliberation: What role for the interpretive social sciences and humanities? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18(1): 67–84.

17.

Boehnke

(2015) Oh the humanities! Science 347(6226): 1166.

18.

Bondre

(2016) Uncovering the Anthropocene’s social roots. Future Earth blog. Available at: http://futureearth.org/blog/2016-may-11/bridge-one-side-only-discussing-roots-anthropocene (accessed 15 May 2016).

19.

Bonneuil

Fressoz

J-P

(2016, March) The Shock of the Anthropocene. vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 79–89. London: Verso.

20.

Brasseur

Gallardo

(2016) Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. Earth’s Future 4: 79–89.

21.

Bretherton

(1985) Earth System Science and remote sensing. Proceedings of the IEEE 73: 1118–1127.

22.

Brondizio

(2016) Re-conceptualizing the Anthropocene: A call for collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39(July): 318–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.gioenvcha.2016.02.006.

23.

Burke

et al . (2016) Opportunities for advances in climate change economics. Science 352(6283): 292–293.

24.

Bushell

et al . (2015) A unified narrative for climate change. Nature Climate Change 5: 971–973.

25.

Cai

Lenton

Lontzek

(2016) Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction. Nature Climate Change 6: 520–525.

26.

Caldeira

(2015) Stop emissions! MIT Technology Review. Available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/543916/stop-emissions/.

27.

Carrico

et al . (2015) US climate policy needs behavioural science. Nature Climate Change 5: 177–179.

28.

Castree

(2015) Unfree radicals: Geoscientists, the Anthropocene, and left politics. Antipode 49(suppl. 1): 52–74.

29.

Castree

(2017) Earth system science. In: Richardson

et al . (eds) International Encyclopedia of Geography. pp. 1–15. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, forthcoming.

30.

Castree

et al . (2014) Changing the intellectual climate. Nature Climate Change 9: 763–768.

31.

Chapin

et al . (2011) Earth stewardship: Science for action to sustain the human–earth system. Ecosphere 2(8): 1–19.

32.

Clayton

et al . (2015) Psychological research and global climate change. Nature Climate Change 5: 640–646.

33.

Corner

Groves

(2014) ‘Breaking the climate change communication deadlock’. Nature Climate Change 4, 743–745.

34.

Costanza

et al . (2012) Developing an Integrated History and Future of People on Earth (IHOPE). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4: 106–114.

35.

Costanza

et al . (2014) Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505(16 January): 283–284.

36.

Davidson

(2016) Gaps in agricultural climate adaptation research. Nature Climate Change 6(May): 4335.

37.

DeFries

et al . (2013) Planetary opportunities. BioScience 62(6): 603–606.

38.

Diaz

et al . (2015) The IPBES conceptual framework – Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environment and Sustainability 14: 1–16.

39.

Dirzo

et al . (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195): 401–406.

40.

Earth League (2016) The Earth statement. Available at: http://earthstatement.org/statement/.

41.

Eisenack

et al . (2014) Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change 4(October): 867–872.

42.

Eriksen

Nightingale

Eakin

(2015) Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change. Global Environmental Change 35(4): 523–533.

43.

Erisman

et al . (2015) Put people at the centre of global risk management. Nature 519(12 March): 151–153.

44.

Fazey

(2016) Past and future adaptation pathways. Climate & Development 8(1): 26–44.

45.

Felt

et al . (2016) Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice. Science, Technology & Human Values 41(4): 362–379.

46.

Fenichel

et al . (2016) Wealth reallocation and sustainability under climate change. Nature Climate Change 6(March): 237–244.

47.

Fischer

et al . (2007) Mind the sustainability gap. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(12): 621–624.

48.

Fleck

(1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

49.

Ford

et al . (2016) Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nature Climate Change 6(April): 349–353.

50.

Griggs

Kestin

(2011) Bridging the gap between climate scientists and decision makers. Climate Research 25: 139–144.

51.

Griggs

et al . (2014) An integrated framework for sustainable development goals. Ecology and Society 19(4): 49.

52.

Hackmann

St.Clair

(2012) Transformative Cornerstones of Social Science Research for Global Change. Paris: ISSC.

53.

Hackmann

et al . (2014) The social heart of global environmental change. Nature Climate Change 4(August): 653–655.

54.

Hansen

(2009) Storms of my Grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury.

55.

Hartman

(2015) Unpacking the black box: The need for integrated environmental humanities. Future Earth blog. Available at: http://futureearth.org/blog/2015-jun-3/unpacking-black-box-need-integrated-environmental-humanities-ieh.

56.

Heise

(2014) Comparative literature and the environmental humanities. Available at: http://stateofthediscipline.acla.org/entry/comparative-literature-and-environmental-humanities#sthash.KEN5Dkou.dpuf.

57.

Hoekstra

Wiedmann

(2014) Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science 344(6188): 1114–1117.

58.

Hollin

Pearce

(2015) Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nature Climate Change 5(August): 753–755.

59.

Holm

(2015) Humanities for the environment – A manifesto for research and action. Humanities 4: 977–992.

60.

Hulme

(2011) Reducing the future to climate. Osiris 26(1): 245–266.

61.

Hulme

(2014a) Climate change and virtue: An apologetic. Humanities 3(3): 299–312.

62.

Hulme

(2014b) Can Science Fix Climate Change? Cambridge: Polity Press.

63.

International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IBGP) (2015) Global Change Magazine 84, November.

64.

Ignaciuk

et al . (2012) Responding to complex societal challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4: 147–158.

65.

International Social Science Council and UNESCO (2013) World Social Science Report. Paris: UNESCO.

66.

Jasanoff

(2012) Science and Public Reason. London: Routledge.

67.

Jetzkowitz

et al . (2017) The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research DOI:10.1080/13511610.2017.1348933.

68.

Kagan

(2009) The Three Cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.

69.

Kinzig

et al . (2013) Social norms and global environmental challenges: The complex interactions of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience 63(3): 164–175.

70.

Klein

(2014) This Changes Everything. New York: Simon and Shuster.

71.

Klenk

Meehan

(2015) Climate change and transdisciplinary science. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 160–167.

72.

Kraucunas

et al . (2015) Investigating the nexus of climate, energy, water, and land at decision-relevant scales. Climatic Change 129: 573–588.

73.

Leemans

(2016) The lessons learned from shifting global change research programmes to sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 103–110.

74.

Liu

et al . (2015) Systems integration for global sustainability. Science 347(6225): 963.

75.

Lövbrand

et al . (2015) Who speaks for the future of the Earth? Global Environmental Change 32(2): 211–218.

76.

Lubchenko

et al . (2015) Sustainability rooted in science. Nature Geoscience 8(October): 741–745.

77.

Machin

(2013) Negotiating Climate Change. London: Zed Books.

78.

Malone

Rayner

(eds) (1998) Human Choice and Climate Change. 4 Volumes. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

79.

Mann

(2012) The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia University Press.

80.

Mann

(2015) Environmental humanities – Another view. Future Earth blog. Available at: http://www.futureearth.org/blog/2015-jun-3/environmental-humanities-another-view.

81.

Marguiles

et al . (2016) Ambiguous geographies: Connecting case study knowledge with global change science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 106(3): 572–596.

82.

Mauser

et al . (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(3): 420–431.

83.

Mooney

Duraiappah

Larigauderie

(2013) Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs. PNAS 110(suppl. 1): 3665–3672.

84.

Moser

(2016) Reflections on climate change communication research. WIRES Climate Change 5: 337–358.DOI:10.1002/wcc.403.

85.

Moss

et al . (2013) Hell and high water: Practice-relevant adaptation science. Science 342(8 November): 696–698.

86.

Myers

et al . (2013) The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change 3(April): 343–347.

87.

NASA (1986) Earth System Science Overview. Washington, DC: NASA.

88.

Nature (2015) Editorial: Time for the social sciences. Nature 517(1 January): 5.

89.

O’Brien

et al . (2013) You say you want a revolution. Environmental Science & Policy 28(1): 48–59.

90.

Pahl-Wost

et al . (2013) Transition towards a new global change science. Environmental Science and Policy 28(1): 36–47.

91.

Palmer

Smith

(2014) Model human adaptation to climate change. Nature 512(28 August): 365–366.

92.

Pelling

(2011) Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. London: Routledge.

93.

Pizer

et al . (2014) Using and improving the social cost of carbon. Science 346(6214): 1189–1190.

94.

Pope Francis (2015) Encyclical letter Laudato si. Rome: Vatican Press.

95.

Reid

Mooney

(2016) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Testing the limits of interdisciplinary and multi-scale science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 40–46.

96.

Reid

et al . (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability. Science 330(12 November): 916.

97.

Sarewitz

(2016) Constructive engagement is the key to climate action. Nature 529(7 January): 6.

98.

Sayre

et al . (2013) Invitation to Earth stewardship. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(7): 339.

99.

Schellnhuber

et al . (eds) (2004) Earth Systems Analysis for Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

100.

Schlosser

Pfirman

(2012) Earth science for sustainability. Nature Geoscience 5(September): 587–588.

101.

Siedl

et al . (2013) Science with society in the Anthropocene. Ambio 42(1): 5–12.

102.

Sörlin

(2012) Environmental humanities: Why should biologists take them seriously? BioScience 62(9): 788.

103.

Sovacool

et al . (2015) The political economy of climate adaptation. Nature Climate Change 5(July): 616–618.

104.

Sovacool

et al . (2016) Energy decision reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2016.24.

105.

Spash

(2013) The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement? Ecological Economics 93(3): 351–362.

106.

Stafford-Smith

et al . (2012) Interconnected risk and solutions for a planet under pressure. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(1): 3–6.

107.

Steffen

et al . (2011) The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 49(5): 739–761.

108.

Steffen

et al . (2015a) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223): DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855

109.

Steffen

et al . (2015b) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2(1): 81–98.

110.

Stern

et al . (2013) Managing risk with climate vulnerability science. Nature Climate Change 3(July): 607–609.

111.

Strauss

(2015) Cultural knowledge and local risks. Nature Climate Change 5(July): 624–625.

112.

Tavoni

Levin

(2014) Managing the climate commons at the nexus of ecology, behaviour and economics. Nature Climate Change 4(December): 1057–1063.

113.

Turner

II Lambin

Reenberg

(2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(52): 20,666–20,671.

114.

Van der Held

(2016) New science for global sustainability? Environmental Science & Policy 61: 165–175.

115.

Victor

(2014) Copenhagen II or something new. Nature Climate Change 4(October): 853–855.

116.

Victor

(2015) Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520(2 April): 27–29.

117.

Weaver

et al . (2014) From global change science to action with social sciences. Nature Climate Change 4(August): 656–659.

118.

Zalasiewicz

et al . (2015) When did the Anthropocene begin? Quaternary International 383(5): 193–202.